3 ms·

> The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users custo

by beej71 2y ago

> The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. We're also giving the power to the government to rescind 230 and I don't doubt for a moment that an administration could find reason to do so particularly for media sites it doesn't appreciate... Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion.

lliamander 2y ago
> This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. > Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. I mean that the social media platform has to be explicit about what they allow. It doesn't matter what social media platform wants to allow (provided it is legal) so long as they tell their users what it is. > Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. IANAL, but it seems to me this kind of thing already comes up all the time in things like contract law, employement law, unfair business practices, etc. > I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion. I agree. What I am proposing requires no new legislation, and merely requires us to enforce existing legislation more or less as it is written.

by beej71 2y ago

lliamander 2y ago

> This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. > Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. I mean that the social media platform has to be explicit about what they allow. It doesn't matter what social media platform wants to allow (provided it is legal) so long as they tell their users what it is. > Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. IANAL, but it seems to me this kind of thing already comes up all the time in things like contract law, employement law, unfair business practices, etc. > I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion. I agree. What I am proposing requires no new legislation, and merely requires us to enforce existing legislation more or less as it is written.